If its bad for film, would it not be bad at some level for people?
This is for the checked luggage, not the people scanners.
Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
21–30 of 166 posts
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#22Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning
Yeah.
For one thing it's fun.
Another is that film genuinely has features digital cameras can't match. For example, if you overexpose most film you aren't left with massive pure white patches - there's still differentiation in those areas. This is particularly the case in colour negative film, other formats are more sensative. A lot of people prefer films grain to digital sensors noise and artifacts.
A huge (literally) benefit of film are the extra formats. Medium format film photography is accessible, but digital medium format cameras are mind-blowingly expensive. Even then, it's not the resolution. Larger formats require longer focal lengths, which means narrow depths of field are possible at long range. See David Burnetts superb portfolio from London 2012 - shot on 4x5 (inch) film. https://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=London%202....
You've also got all sorts of other odd formats, such as the 6x16 (cm) panoramic medium format (not cheap though).
But really, it's just a lot of fun. Nailing exposure using a light meter, rather than just trying again until you get it right. Not missing photos because you were looking at the screen. Watching b/w prints form. The long and tense process for turning b/w negative film into positive slides.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#23Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning
Besides any modern negatives, there are historical ones that need preservation (my grandfather-in-law's WW2 negatives for example). We've been meaning to digitize them but time is always an issue.
Is it that hard to mail them off for digitization?
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#24Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning
I would think of imaging as broken out into three very high level categories.
Consumer, Commercial, and Industrial.
For consumers it is mostly about nostalgia and a process that is enjoyable to use.
For commercial (I am including high level hobbyists, still professionals, cinema, etc) there are technical advantages such as the size of the image produced (film area vs digital sensor area) and other factors which have a meaningful impact on the final product.
For industrial (I am including things like research) there is no (cost effective) digital equivalent. I remember reading about an experiment where they would fill a chamber with large blocks of film, and then track particle paths through the film.
You can go super deep in each area to find the technical differences that people in each one care about.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
MF is cheaper to acquire in film. Because of the big negatives, u do can make high resolution digital copies from them. Uninteresting for most photograhic fields, because of the big and hefty equipment to a APS-C/FF system, but it could make sense for someone doing landscape or architecture. Those bigger lenses have less of a problem to keep the "resolution" high before it hits the sensor/film, that gives small thing…
> MF is cheaper to acquire in film. By "MF", I take it you mean medium format. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format That a very excellent point that emphasizes how technology is often about trade-offs, not linear advancement. With film, it's far cheaper to increase the sensor size because the sensor is literally a consumable item . With digital, the sensor is an sophisticated electronic component that it's muc…
Yeah, basically for nostalgia and no other reason I prefer to shoot with full-frame sensors (like Nikon FX) rather than on the crop sensor (like DX). The larger-sensor digital bodies are considerably more expensive, even if they're years old and used.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#26If its bad for film, would it not be bad at some level for people?
This is for the checked luggage, not the people scanners.
It's for carry on. Checked luggage goes through WAY more radiation and you should never put undeveloped film or anything else that's radiation sensitive in your checked luggage.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#27Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning
I don't know that I believe this is a "genuine question", because it's quite easy to look up that yes, people still use film, and the article itself is a clear indication that Kodak still produces and sells film. As far as not understanding, there are things about film that are different than digital. It's may not necessarily be a technical discussion any more (though others may disagree with me), but artistic choice…
> I don't know that I believe this is a "genuine question"
Because you're being pedantic i.e, if there's one person left shooting with film, then "people" are. Look past the literal words and understand the sentiment "What advantages do people see with film over digital?"
> there are things [...] not necessarily be a technical discussion [...] others may disagree [...] artistic choices
Things like what? Artistic choices such as?
I don't think this is a genuine answer. Certainly there must be good reasons people shoot film. But nobody can disagree with you here because in so many words, you said nothing to answer the question.
edit:
It's frustrating to see gp's question downmodded because we reserve that for "Doesn't add to the discussion". It was not impolite and it allowed many of you to surface your passions about shooting with film. How was it unhelpful? Don't interpret gp's inquiry as a dig on your choices; no one need be insecure about sentimentality.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#28Can wait until very important data is lost to bit flips / corruption from scanner. " Cure to cancer lost to TSA scanner "
If you're working on a cure for cancer you should have double, triple, quadruple backups on and off site and not fly around with the only copy of your data.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#29Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning
Besides any modern negatives, there are historical ones that need preservation (my grandfather-in-law's WW2 negatives for example). We've been meaning to digitize them but time is always an issue.
Radiation doesn't harm film that's already been developed.
Re: Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film
#30Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning
You’re getting all kinds of answers but a key one, for me, is that film is unavoidably slow and expensive. Digital cameras teach you that each frame is cheap and throwaway. That encourages some kinds of photographic/artful thinking while obscuring others.
Old masters of large format film photography have a workflow and thought process that’s vastly different from modern digicam shooting. When you have just one or two potential exposures and maybe only 15 minutes of perfect light to pull it off, you must research and plan and conceptualize deeply.
Ansel Adams is the grandmaster here. He has three books on exposure, shooting, and development which read like alien artifacts to someone who’s used to digital. They also convey amazing conceptual clarity.
Picking up an old film camera is a good way to get a little bit in touch with that ethos.